1995

ERIC Digest

EDO-CG-95-26

Computer-Assisted Testing in Counseling and Therapy

James P. Sampson, Jr.
Computer-assisted testing (CAT) in counseling and
therapy is becoming increasingly common due to dramatic improvements in cost-effectiveness and increased
counselor familiarity with computer applications. The
assumption underlying the use of CAT is that the effectiveness of counseling is improved by allocating repetitive computational and instructional tasks to the computer, thus allowing counselors to more fully focus on
interpersonal tasks, such as helping clients understand
the role of testing in counseling and helping clients integrate the self-knowledge obtained in testing into a concrete plan for behavior change. The potential benefits of
CAT, however, need to be evaluated against the potential
limitations of this technology.
Computer-Assisted Testing Options
The following options exist for using computer-assisted testing in counseling and therapy:
1) Test administration via: a) keyboard input by the
client from items presented on the computer display, with
alternative input options available for physically disabled
clients; or b) client completion of a specially prepared test
answer sheet that is then optically scanned for computer
input; or c) client completion of a traditional test answer
sheet with keyboard input by a clerical staff person.
2) Test scoring via the computer (local or remote).
3) Test score profile generation via the computer.
4) Narrative interpretive report generation via the
computer with reports available for both the client and
practitioner if appropriate (the narrative report may also
include the test profile).
5) Videodisc-based generalized test interpretation
provided to the client immediately following test administration (Sampson, 1990a, p 452-453).
Potential Benefits of Computer-Assisted Testing
Computer-assisted testing can enhance test administration, scoring, interpretation, and integration. Test administration and scoring may be enhanced due to the standardization inherent in computer functioning. Each test
taker receives an identical presentation of test items and
response sets (with the exception of adaptive testing
where each test taker receives a unique minimum selection of items necessary to achieve a valid result). Greater
standardization of item presentation eliminates errors
caused when a test taker gets out of sync between the
answer sheet and a printed test item (Byers, 1981). The
availability of adaptive devices allows persons with a disability to complete tests with minimal staff assistance
(Sampson, 1990b). Test results can be more valid since
staff members have less of an opportunity to influence
client responses. Test scoring is enhanced due to reduced
computational errors.

Test interpretation may be enhanced by providing

the counselor with an expanded and consistent knowledge base to assist in the interpretation of test data. Computer-based test interpretation (CBTI) is typically based
on research data and clinical experience. Roid and
Gorsuch (1984) described four approaches to CBTI: 1)
descriptive interpretations; 2) clinician-modeled interpretations (renowned clinician type); 3) clinician-modeled
interpretations (statistical model type); and 4) clinical actuarial interpretations. Counselors can use CBTI to support or challenge their judgments about the nature of client problems and potentially effective intervention strategies.
Test integration may be enhanced by including computer-assisted instruction as part of CAT. Clients can be
better prepared to use their test results by being more
aware of basic concepts and the general nature of their
scores. Relieved of presenting repetitive test interpretation information, counselors have more time to explore
clients perceptions of their test data and the implications
of the test data for behavior change. The computer can
be used to deliver both text-based and interactive videobased instruction (Sampson, 1990a).
Potential Limitations of Computer-Assisted Testing
Computer-assisted testing can limit, as well as enhance, test administration and interpretation. Although
paper-and-pencil and computer administration of tests
often produce equivalent results, variations in results have
sometimes been found to exist. French (1986) recommended that the equivalency of results from different
types of administration modes needs to be established
for each instrument. Establishing equivalency will reduce
the likelihood that computer administration is influencing the nature of test results. Scoring errors represent another potential limitation for computer-assisted test administration. Most (1987) noted that, The computer itself does not contribute error, but the complex nature of
computer programming and the difficulty involved in
reading computer programs or code makes it easy to make
program errors which are difficult to find (p. 377).
Concerns have been raised about the validity of computer-based test interpretation. Eyde and Kowal (1987)
found differences in CBTI reports generated from a single
set of scores from one instrument. Differences also were
noted in their study between the CBTI reports and the
judgments of a clinician. Eyde and Kowal (1987) stated,
Buyers should be aware of the limitations of computer
products and remind themselves that computer output
is only as good as the data behind the decision rules used
to produce the interpretation (p. 407). Ethical concerns
also exist about counselor misuse of CBTI. Unqualified
counselors may be more likely to use CBTI reports to compensate for a lack of training and experience. By using

CBTI to replace rather than supplement counselor judgement,

counselors become more dependent on the potentially dubious validity of some CBTI software and are less likely to integrate data from valid CBTI reports effectively with other
sources of client data due to their lack of background knowledge.
Recommendations
Counselors should become familiar with existing CAT
applications (see Krug, 1993; Walz, Bleuer, & Maze, 1989) and
the various professional standards that relate to CAT. Counselors then should carefully select and effectively implement
valid software that is subsequently evaluated in terms of service delivery impact.
Conclusion
The use of CAT can either enhance or limit the effectiveness of testing in counseling and therapy. Having an open
mind about the potential of this technology and a willingness to change needs to be matched with good critical thinking skills and a healthy skepticism for any innovation promising substantial benefits from minimal efforts. It is the responsibility of counselors to guide the design and use of this
technology.
References
Byers, A. P. (1981). Psychological evaluation by means of an
on-line computer. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 13, 585-587.
Eyde, L. D., & Kowal, D. M. (1987). Computerised test interpretation services: Ethical and professional concerns regarding U.S. producers and users. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 36(3/4), 401-417.

Krug, S. E. (1993). PSYCHWARE SOURCEBOOK: A resource

guide to computer based products for assessment in psychology, education, and business (4th Ed.). Champaign, IL:
Metritech.
Most, R. (1987). Levels of error in computerized psychological inventories. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 36(3/4), 375-383.
Roid, G. H., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1984). Development and clinical use of test-interpretive programs on microcomputers. In M. D. Schwartz (Ed.), Using computers in clinical
practice: Psychotherapy and mental health applications (pp.
141-149). New York: Haworth Press.
Sampson, J. P., Jr. (1990a). Computer applications and issues
in using tests in counseling. In C. E. Watkins, Jr. & V. L.
Campbell (Eds.), Testing in counseling practice (pp. 451474). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Sampson, J. P., Jr. (1990b). Computer-assisted testing and the
goals of counseling psychology. The Counseling Psychologist, 18, 227-239.
Walz, G. R., Bleuer, J. C., & Maze, M. (Eds). (1989). Counseling
software guide: A resource for the guidance and human development professions. Alexandria, VA: American Association
for Counseling and Development.
James P. Sampson, Jr. is a professor in the Department of Human
Resources and Studies and Co-Director of the Center for the Study
of Technology in Counseling and Career Development at Florida
State University in Tallahassee, Florida.

French, C. F. (1986). Microcomputers and psychometric assessment. British Journal of Guidance and counselling, 14,
33-45.

For information on other ERIC/CASS products and services, please call toll-free (800) 414-9769 or (910) 334-4114 or fax (910)
334-4116 or write ERIC/CASS, School of Education, University of North Carolina at Greensboro, Greensboro, NC 27412.